5 ms·
For smaller research groups I expect you’d need to contact researchers and ask for their raw data. Unless you’re an expert in the field expert, they may not be
by jeffwass 9y ago
For smaller research groups I expect you’d need to contact researchers and ask for their raw data. Unless you’re an expert in the field expert, they may not be willing to provide.
If you are an expert they probably know of you already and would be happy to collaborate on whatever further research is done using their acquired data. (This happens between experimentalists and theorists all the time).
Some larger collaborations may provide their raw data broadly. Eg, I believe all Hubble Space Telescope data becomes publicly available (the PI’s get some limited time exclusive use to their run data, so they don’t get scooped, but it’s made public later.). Other setups like CERN and FermiLab may do similarly. In these cases it’s up to you to dig deep into the instrument manuals and do your own calibrations and adjustments.
Regarding matching experiment to theory, that’s basically done by experimental research groups directly, in their own publications, probably widely available in the Arxiv.
- qubex 9y agoI don't disagree with you about researchers being unwilling to share their raw data if somebody is not a known researcher in the field, but I consider it rather despicable behaviour.
- auntienomen 9y agoSharing data with an amateur is asking to have your time wasted. It'd be nice if this wasn't the case, but I don't blame scientific researchers for preferring to spend their time advancing science.
- tempay 9y agoMaking your data publicly available doesn't require you to then support people who try to use it.
- justifier 9y agolike albert in his patent office? I jest, but honestly I am confused abit by your flippant response Is my request that controversial? The speed of light has been studied for hundreds of years.. asking to see even just romer's data should hardly be an affront on the time of contemporary researchers Do you think science should be accepted as only solutions without evidence? I agree, spend your time advancing science but does publishing fall under your description of 'sharing'? I blame the journal format for the lack of resources I am seeking: it is impractical to publish terabytes of raw data in a journal so why even describe the data beyond your results? I feel the journals have inadvertently created a system of belief which is antithetical to science Look at the recent revelations concerning reproducibility One argument against gatekeeping 'amateurs' is the researchers are busy researching and we require more checks than those researchers have time to do themselves How would you feel about a closed source project that lacked any documentation and only showed vague benchmarks but promised revolutionary results?
- qubex 9y agoA pertinent comment, I don’t know why you were downvotes.
- madhadron 9y agoIt's an attitude based on experience. Far too much of the inbox of someone affiliated with a physics department is filled with: 1) cranks claiming to have debunked something, 2) journalists looking for a sound bite, 3) curious laymen who quickly become angry when you point out the prerequisites they need to understand before they can understand the answer to their question. Is it healthy? No. Is it rational given the situation? Sadly, yes.